Â鶹APP

The decision was illegal since the Applicant, as a 15-day mark candidate, had been found suitable and therefore, in application of Section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Administration was precluded from considering and selecting 30-day mark candidates. The Administration is bound to strictly adhere to the unambiguous terms of an administrative instruction.The Administration has discretionary power to set down reasonable standards to determine if a candidate has ¡°working knowledge¡± of a certain language, which it did in the present case.The Administration, in its dealing with staff members, has to...

In the present case, the Administration must be deemed to have made good faith efforts to identify a position for the Applicant, for it actually offered him an adequate position. For a position to be considered adequate, it is not sufficient that it is at the same level than the previous position of the concerned staff member. It is also required that it be in line with his/her skills, qualifications and experience. Anyone alleging that a given decision was based on improper motivation bears the burden of proof. Outcome: The application was rejected. UNADT Judgment No. 910 (1998)

All staff have a right and a duty to report to management any facts that come to their notice which may constitute professional misconduct. The UNHCR Inspector General¡¯s decision not to follow up on the allegations made by the applicant, after an investigation, is an internal measure pertaining to the organization and management of the service which is non- appealable by the staff member who made the allegations, since the alleged misconduct in no way violates the applicant¡¯s rights as derived from his status. In the case at hand, the applicant alleged that his supervisor had wrongly claimed...

The Tribunal highlights the necessity of management evaluation, quoting Nwuke and Caldarone. It is not enough to merely initiate the procedure. On the contrary, the result of Management evaluation has to be awaited generally, before an application may be submitted to the Tribunal. It is not within the Applicant's discretion to evade management evaluation which is considered useless. Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the request for review in July 2009. Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 UNDT Statute, art. 7.5 UNDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. The question whether UNDT has jurisdiction to waive time limits under the former system of internal justice - denied in Costa - could be left open, because no "exceptional circumstances" could be accepted. It was the Applicant's free will to await the outcome of the investigations, instead¡¤of...

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

As the Applicants did not respond at all to the Tribunal¡¯s requests, they therefore must be deemed to have abandoned the legal proceedings they instituted.Outcome: Application was dismissed.

Since former Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Tribunal pointed out that the application was time-barred under Staff Rule 111.2 (a).Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The Tribunal limited its review to the time-bar of the statement of appeal to the JAB in Februaiy 2009. Since fonner Staff Rules were applicable to this case, the Morsy judgment and the broader definition of "exceptional cases" with reference to art. 8.3 UNDT Statute, art. 7.5 UNDT RoP had to remain out of consideration. Neither the lack of knowledge of the English language nor ignorance of law could be accepted as "exceptional circumstances".Outcome: Application was dismissed.

The applicant submits that the decision not to promote her is contrary to the Charter of the Â鶹APP and the provisions of the Staff Rules stipulating that the main factors to be considered with regard to promotions are efficiency, competence and integrity. However, the applicant does not specify in what respects the contested decision violates the said provisions and thus does not enable the judge to rule on these assertions. The principal reason for the refusal to recommend promotion was that the applicant had not been recommended in 2007. While the applicant is contesting that...